On 4/3/2024 7:26 AM, Christian König wrote: > Am 03.04.24 um 15:12 schrieb Jani Nikula: >> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:28:14AM -0700, Easwar Hariharan wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/2024 10:16 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: >>>>>> Hi Easwar, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:26PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote: >>>>>>> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave" >>>>>> I don't understand why we forget that i3c is 1.1.1 :-) >>>>> That's because it's a copy-paste error from Wolfram's cover letter. :) I'll update >>>>> next go-around. >>>> not a binding comment, though. Just for completeness, because we >>>> are giving the version to the i2c and smbus, but not i3c. >>>> >>>>>>> with more appropriate terms. Inspired by and following on to Wolfram's >>>>>>> series to fix drivers/i2c/[1], fix the terminology for users of >>>>>>> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists >>>>>>> in the specification. >>>>>> The specification talks about: >>>>>> >>>>>> - master -> controller >>>>>> - slave -> target (and not client) >>>>>> >>>>>> But both you and Wolfram have used client. I'd like to reach >>>>>> some more consistency here. >>>>> I had the impression that remote targets (i.e external to the device) were to be called clients, >>>>> e.g. the QSFP FRUs in drivers/infiniband, and internal ones targets. >>>>> I chose the terminology according to that understanding, but now I can't find where I got that >>>>> information. >>>> The word "client" does not even appear in the documentation (only >>>> one instance in the i3c document), so that the change is not >>>> related to the document as stated in the commit log. Unless, of >>>> course, I am missing something. >>>> >>>> I'm OK with choosing a "customized" naming, but we need to reach >>>> an agreement. >>>> >>>> I raised the same question to Wolfram. >>> I don't know where that discussion happened, but my opinion >>> is NAK to "client". Life is already confusing enough with >>> these renames, so let's not make it even more confusing by >>> inventing new names nowhere to be found in the spec. >>> >>> And let's especially not invent names that don't even fit >>> the purpose. "Client" makes me think of "client/server" or >>> some real world analogy. Neither of which seem to have any >>> resemblence to how the term would be used for i2c. >> Agreed. >> >> I2C 7.0, I3C 1.1.1, and SMBus 3.2 have all switched to controller/target >> terminology. The SMBus spec has additionally converted generic host >> references to controller. >> >> At least for i915 where I have some say in the matter, controller/target >> it shall be. > > +1 for using the same vocabulary in amdgpu as in the specifications. > > My personal opinion is that master/slave was actually a pretty good description of the relationship. > > The "slave" or rather target of the communication is forced into operation, can't speak back and potentially won't get any payment for the serving. > > If we remove the word slave from our vocabulary society will just sooner or later start to forget the meaning, and that is probably not a good thing. > > Regards, > Christian. > Thanks for the review, Christian. I'll adapt to controller/target in v1. Thanks, Easwar
